DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 2/05/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 15, and 17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
The present amendments to the claims obviate the previous objections thereto; therefore, these objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present amendments to the claims obviate the previous 112(b) rejections thereto; therefore, these 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Before addressing the merits of Applicant’s subject matter eligibility arguments, Examiner addresses an inaccuracy in the following summary statement of the previous 101 rejections: “Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 were rejected as allegedly being directed to patent ineligible subject matter by each being directed to a method of organizing human activity (Office Action, pp. 5, 12, and 18), directed to a mental process (Office Action, pp. 7, 13, and 19), and directed to mathematical concepts (Office Action, p. 7, 14, and 20) without being integrated into a practical application…” Particularly, this statement in the present Remarks asserts the previous 101 rejections concluded that the claims were directed to each of the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts. This is both inaccurate and not in keeping with the performance of Step 2A, Prong Two of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. Rather, the previous 101 rejections found that each of these three abstract idea categories were recited by various claim limitations under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis. Under the Prong Two analysis, these abstract ideas were not parsed as in the above-quoted summary statement, but rather were taken together as a collective, singular abstract idea as per the standards of Prong Two, with the result of the Prong Two analyses being that each claim was directed to the respective abstract idea recited in the claim (Examiner notes that these abstract ideas differ significantly between each of the independent claims). See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(II)(B), entitled “Evaluating Claims Reciting Multiple Judicial Exceptions,” for more information on these standards.
While Claims 1 and 9 are patentably distinct in the sequence of functions recited, they are presently amended and argued in the same way; as such, Examiner treats them together. Before addressing the merits of these particular arguments, Examiner notes that neither the amended preambles (see MPEP 2111.02) nor the newly amended language of “wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed by…” (see Interpretation Notes below) are given patentable weight. As such, even if the content of Applicant’s arguments were persuasive (which, to be clear, they are not – see below), the claims would nonetheless be patent ineligible based on the lack of patentable weight granted to these features. Nonetheless, in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims and arguments below are addressed as if the above-quoted limitation was considered limiting.
Regarding these claims, Applicant first makes the following Step 2A, Prong Two improvement to technology argument: “Amended independent claims 1 and 9 are not directed to a method of organizing human activity because claims 1 and 9 highlight a technical solution to a technical problem that is not related to or deals with organizing human activity.” Ignoring that Applicant immediately refutes this argument by way of discussing human activity in relation to these devices, this argument improperly conflates the standards of Step 2A, Prong One (recitation of judicial exceptions, wherein the abstract idea subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity comes into play) and Step 2A, Prong Two (the determination of what a claim is “directed to,” under which individual categories of abstract idea are irrelevant as they are not parsed but rather taken together as a singular abstract idea as already noted above – again, see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)). Applicant makes similar conflations of the Prong Two “directed to” analysis later in these remarks regarding the separate abstract categories of mental processes and mathematical concepts. As all of these arguments fail for essentially the same reasons, Examiner addresses them together now.
Even treating these arguments in relation to Prong One (where they actually belong) rather than Prong Two as explicitly recited, Applicant misapprehends the standards for each of these abstract categories and the claims continue to recite each of these abstract categories. Firstly, recitation of abstract ideas under Prong One is performed on a limitation-by-limitation basis (see, e.g., the myriad examples of individual claim limitations which recite various categories of abstract idea in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and the subsections thereof, as well as the various Prong One analyses of the Examples of and carried forward by the most recent PEG Update), whereas Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B are performed in relation to the claim as a whole. As such, Applicant’s various assertions of particular claim elements which do not recite these categories of abstract idea in no way prevent other claim elements (such as those noted in the previous and present 101 rejections) from doing so.
Secondly, Applicant presents arguments for each of these categories which take essentially the same form: an argument that computer effectuation of claim steps prevents those steps from reciting abstract ideas. This is not true of any of the three enumerated categories of abstract idea, and indeed flies in the face of the seminal Alice, as well as the wealth of subsequent caselaw which as applied the Alice-Mayo subject matter eligibility test to find any number of computer-performed functions which nonetheless recite abstract ideas. See, e.g., FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019), Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings, Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024), etc.
For example, regarding the abstract idea category of mental processes, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) (entitled “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”) is entirely devoted to refuting Applicant’s erroneous contention. Further, Applicant’s citation to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) misapprehends the content thereof regarding what is meant by a limitation which “practically” be performed in the human mind, not least of all because that very section includes examples of computer-executed steps which nonetheless recite mental processes (see, e.g., the reference to Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A. therein). Rather, as is clear from the content of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), a limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind where the human mind is not equipped to comprehend, analyze, and/or manipulate the information recited in the limitation in the manner recited in the limitation (e.g., “a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites”). Where the claims actually recite such limitations which cannot practically be performed in the human mind (e.g., “establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information), they are categorized as non-abstract additional elements and treated accordingly in the Prong Two and 2B analyses.
Regarding those limitations which are found to recite abstract ideas in the 101 rejections, there is nothing in the data recording, looking up, and analysis steps which could not practically be performed in the human mind (or variously recite certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts, as applicable), and the mere claiming of these steps as being effecutated by computer elements does nothing to make this otherwise. The cited caselaw in the paragraph above each contain such computer-effectuated data analysis steps which were judicially identified as reciting abstract ideas. For example, the court in Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co. identified that “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data” constitute abstract ideas. Additionally, as in Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings, Inc., the present claims are “drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.”
Applicant’s general Prong Two contention that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea based on computer execution of the claimed methods likewise flies in the face of Alice, particularly as this at a high level is the core argument refuted by the Supreme Court therein. Further, what Applicant describes as a “technological solution” does not appear to qualify as such, instead appearing to cloak broader, abstract improvements in technological language. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” To this end, Applicant argues that “Claims 1 and 9 solve the technical problem of determining an inactivity of multiple electronic devices by: 1) requiring dedicated software/applications on each electronic device that can take up invaluable resources (e.g., computing and/or storage) reserved for normal operation of each electronic device; and 2) requiring a user of the electronic device, who may be busy performing his/her job duties and who may lack the requisite computer/technological knowledge, to perform additional actions to provide information necessary to the determination of the activity/inactivity of the electronic device.” Examiner notes for clarity that he imagines Applicant intended to place “not” after each of “1)” and “2),” as otherwise these arguments appear to recite problems rather than solutions. The actual problem being addressed here is the broader, abstract problem of determining whether a shipped item has been received and put to use. That the item in question in this instance being some form of electronic device does not transform this abstract concern into a technological one. None of the technological elements recited in the claims are themselves improved, but instead are merely used as tools to effectuate the claimed sequence of abstract data analyses, something long-recognized as insufficient to integrate a claim into a practical application (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, both of Applicant’s listed items in the above-quoted language are hypothetical, presuming additional details which are either not embodied in the claims (e.g., the user being busy or to some degree computer illiterate for even the basic task of electronic communications, both of which Examiner notes are abstract problems stemming from conditions of an individual rather than technological ones), unnecessary (e.g., “requiring dedicated software/applications on each electronic device…” – see below for more information), or both. The use of this “normal operation” language in the present Remarks is no less indefinite than in the claims themselves, rendering the unexplained intended meaning of this language as relates to both the claims and arguments at best unclear.
Particularly regarding Applicant’s listed item “2),” this abstract improvement is not transformed into a technological one by Applicant’s assertion that “[t]his technical solution requires no additional applications on each electronic device that are dedicated to providing the information necessary to determining the activity of the electronic device as well as requires no actions by the user except those that are performed by the user during normal operation of the electronic device (e.g., during normal performance of the job duties of the user);” rather, this appears to be no more than inventing a problem in order to assert having solved it, as no additional or specially dedicated application need be installed and utilized for any standard computing device to communicate via electronic signals as claimed. Indeed, such data receipt and transmission functionalities of any standard computing/electronic devices are so basic and ubiquitous as of Applicant’s effective filing date that Examiner is at a loss as to how Applicant seemingly reaches the conclusion that some additional application would be necessary for this purpose. See also the 112(b) rejections below regarding “normal operation” of an electronic device. For these reasons, Claims 1 and 9 fail to embody an improvement to a technology as asserted by Applicant, and thus remain subject matter ineligible under the standards of 101.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant asserts integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two via a different purported improvement to a technology. Despite this, these arguments contain many of the same failures and misapprehensions discussed above regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 1 and 9 (e.g., conflation of different steps and associated standards, misapprehension of what may be practically performed in the human mind, etc.). As these issues are already addressed above, the explanations of which apply equally to the analysis of Claim 15, Examiner does not address them again presently. Examiner additionally notes that, while the preamble of Claim 15 is also not considered limiting as per MPEP 2111.02, this does not prevent Claim 15 from embodying the asserted improvement as in Claims 1 and 9, as “the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification” so long as the claim itself reflects the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Particularly, Applicant asserts that Claim 15 addresses “the technical problem of computer systems (e.g., computer processors) having a finite amount of computing resources that, during the day and/or other peak times, are partially or entirely unavailable because those computing resources are being used for other operations by a user and/or client of the claimed invention.” Similar to the purported improvement to technology discussed above regarding Claims 1 and 9, this constitutes an abstract problem cloaked in technological language, ie: the scheduling of tasks/jobs based on the availability of the resources necessary to perform them, in this case claimed as “computing resources.” However, these computing resources and scheduling their usage based on availability thereof translates directly to scheduling based on the availability of any such non-technological resource (e.g., as is done for any number of exemplary services, including the availability/unscheduled time periods of drivers in the shipping industry, to which this invention relates). That the scheduled resources here are computing resources does not transform this job scheduling problem into a technological one.
As an illustration of this, the asserted improvement is a far cry from the improved use of computing resources in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein data is stored by a computer in such a way that less memory was required and less processing power was necessary, something which improves the technological manner in which a computer functions rather than merely claiming the high-level computer effectuation of the age-old abstract business concept of scheduling tasks based on the availability of the resources necessary for such tasks. Further, based on the vague and purely results-based manner in which the four assigned times of day are assigned in a schedule “dependent upon an availability of computing resources of the at least one computer processor,” calling what is claimed an optimized use of computing resources is at best a stretch, even if scheduling resources based on their availability were indeed a technological improvement (which, to be clear, it is not). Rather, this “recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For these reasons, Claim 15 fails to embody an improvement to a technology as asserted by Applicant, and thus remain subject matter ineligible under the standards of 101.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 9, both of which constitute method claims, each contain the following limitation: “wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed by continuously monitoring, by a client distributed server system, for a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information from at least one existing application of the corresponding electronic device with the signal being sent during normal operation of the corresponding electrical device by the user.” This constitutes a contingent limitation of a method claim, and thus is not given patentable weight. Specifically, Claims 1 and 9 do not require the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user, but instead require the identifying of whether the current status is “one of actively in use by a user and delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user.” In other words, these claims may be practiced without identifying the current status as indicative of the electronic device being actively in in use by the user, either in the manner claimed in the limitation above or otherwise. See MPEP 2111.04 for more information. For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as if they were given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 contain the terms “the corresponding electronic device” and “the corresponding electrical device.” These terms are indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis, as there is no prior recitation of a “corresponding” device in the claims. The term “the corresponding electrical device” is additionally indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis, as and there is no prior recitation of an “electrical device” at all in the claims. For the purposes of this examination, and in keeping with other language of the claims, each of these terms will be interpreted as “the electronic device.” Claims 2-8 and 10-14 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claims 1 and 9 respectively.
Claims 1 and 9 contain the language “…during normal operation of the corresponding electrical device by the user.” In this language, the term “normal operation” is indefinite as a subjective term, as what might constitute “normal operation” of an electrical device may reasonably differ from individual to individual, and compoundedly may also vary from one embodiment of an electrical device to another. Further, the original disclosure does not appear to contain any special definition or objective standard for what Applicant might intent “normal operation” to entail. For the purposes of this examination, and in conjunction with the other 112(b) interpretation above, this language will be interpreted as “…during operation of the electronic device by the user.” Claims 2-8 and 10-14 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claims 1 and 9 respectively.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a delivery date for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing a device tracking database that includes a current status for each device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by a user and delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed by continuously monitoring for a communication by the user; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, a first amount of time as measured between the delivery date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention to each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time; and wherein the respective new statuses for the plurality of electronic devices are automatically recorded in the device tracking database, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a delivery date for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing a device tracking database that includes a current status for each device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by a user and delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed by continuously monitoring for a communication by the user; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, a first amount of time as measured between the delivery date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention to each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time; and wherein the respective new statuses for the plurality of electronic devices are automatically recorded in the device tracking database, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, a first amount of time as measured between the delivery date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention to each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, electronic communication, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, a device aging module that includes a computer processor, a client distributed server system, a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information being send during operation of the electronic device, at least one existing application of the electronic device, and electronic recording. Electronic communication, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, and a device aging module that includes a computer processor, and a client distributed server system, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices and electronic recording, a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information being send during operation of the electronic device, and at least one existing application of the electronic device, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses wherein the threshold amount of time is designated as seven days (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses recording, upon obtaining the shipping information, the delivery date for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and accessing the delivery date for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses providing, to a client, a device status report that includes the new status for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) with the device status report being electronically communicated to the client (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses wherein the device status report provided to the client includes at least a portion of the device tracking database (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 4), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses transmitting multiple requests for at least a portion of the shipping information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) via electronic communication (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); and receiving, by the device gaining module, at least a portion of the shipping information in response to each request (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses wherein the step of transmitting multiple requests for at least a portion of the shipping information includes implementing an application programming interface to format and transmit the request (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a shipment date and an indication that package tracking information is not available for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing the device tracking database that includes a current status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by a user and in the process of being shipped to the user, wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed by continuously monitoring for a communication by the user; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is in the process of being shipped to the user, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status to the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a shipment date and an indication that package tracking information is not available for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing the device tracking database that includes a current status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by a user and in the process of being shipped to the user, wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed by continuously monitoring for a communication by the user; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is in the process of being shipped to the user, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status to the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by a user and in the process of being shipped to the user; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is in the process of being shipped to the user, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status to the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, electronic communication, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, a device aging module that includes a computer processor, a client distributed server system, a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information being send during operation of the electronic device, at least one existing application of the electronic device, and execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions. Electronic communication, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, a device aging module that includes a computer processor, a client distributed server system, and execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information being send during operation of the electronic device, and at least one existing application of the electronic device, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-14, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 9, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 9 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the shipping information further includes a shipping method for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9) and the threshold amount of time is twelve days if the shipping method for the electronic device is one of priority, next-day, and two-day shipping and seventeen days if the shipping method is not one of priority, next-day, and two-day shipping (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses recording, upon receiving the shipping information, the shipment date and the indication that the package tracking information is not available for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and accessing the shipment date and indication that the package tracking information is not available for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 12 discloses providing, to a client, a device status report that includes the new status for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices with the device status report being electronically communicated to the client (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 13 discloses wherein the new status indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention is In Use Attention Required (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 14 discloses wherein the first plurality of devices includes at least five-hundred devices (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9) and the device aging module identifies whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by a user and in the process of being shipped to the user during a time period of thirty minutes (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of accessing, at a first time of day set out in a schedule dependent upon an availability of resources, shipping information that includes at least one of an indication that package tracking information is one of available and unavailable, a delivery date, and a shipment date for a return label for each corresponding electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; wherein accessing of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing, at a second time of day based upon the schedule, a device tracking database that includes the current status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, at a third time set out in the schedule and for each device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is to be returned; in response to the indication being that the device is not to be returned, performing no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, for each respective device of the first plurality of electronic devices, at a fourth time of day set out in the schedule, and in response to the indication being that the device is to be returned, whether the shipping information includes package tracking information for each corresponding electronic device; concurrently comparing via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the indication that the package tracking information is unavailable for the return label of the corresponding electronic device, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date of the return label for the corresponding electronic device and a current date to a first threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is delayed in the return for each respective electronic device in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the first threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each respective electronic device in response to the first amount of time being less than the first threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of accessing, at a first time of day set out in a schedule dependent upon an availability of resources, shipping information that includes at least one of an indication that package tracking information is one of available and unavailable, a delivery date, and a shipment date for a return label for each corresponding electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; wherein accessing of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing, at a second time of day based upon the schedule, a device tracking database that includes the current status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, at a third time set out in the schedule and for each device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is to be returned; in response to the indication being that the device is not to be returned, performing no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; concurrently identifying, for each respective device of the first plurality of electronic devices, at a fourth time of day set out in the schedule, and in response to the indication being that the device is to be returned, whether the shipping information includes package tracking information for each corresponding electronic device; concurrently comparing via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the indication that the package tracking information is unavailable for the return label of the corresponding electronic device, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date of the return label for the corresponding electronic device and a current date to a first threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is delayed in the return for each respective electronic device in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the first threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each respective electronic device in response to the first amount of time being less than the first threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of concurrently comparing via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the indication that the package tracking information is unavailable for the return label of the corresponding electronic device, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date of the return label for the corresponding electronic device and a current date to a first threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is delayed in the return for each respective electronic device in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the first threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each respective electronic device in response to the first amount of time being less than the first threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, electronic communication, at least one computer processor and computing resources thereof, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, and a device aging module. Electronic communication, at least one computer processor and computing resources thereof, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, and a device aging module, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, in the context of the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 15, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 15 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 16 discloses wherein the shipping information further includes a shipping method for the return label for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 15) and the first threshold amount of time is twelve days if the shipping method for the return label is one of priority, next-day, and two-day shipping and seventeen days if the shipping method is not one of priority, next-day, and two-day shipping (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 15), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 17 discloses concurrently identifying, by the device aging module for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the indication that the package tracking information is available for the return label of the corresponding electronic device, whether the shipping information indicates that the return label of the corresponding electronic device has been delivered (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); automatically performing, by the device aging module for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the shipping information indicating that the return label of the corresponding electronic device has yet to be delivered, no action with regards to the new status for each respective electronic device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); concurrently comparing, by the device aging module for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the shipping information indicating that the return label of the corresponding electronic device has been delivered, a second amount of time as measured between the delivery date of the return label for the corresponding electronic device and a current date to a second threshold amount of time (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); automatically assigning, by the device aging module depending upon the comparison of the second amount of time to the second threshold amount of time, a new status indicating the electronic device is delayed in the return for each respective electronic device in response to the second amount of time being equal to or greater than the second threshold amount of time (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and automatically performing, by the device aging module depending upon the comparison of the second amount of time to the second threshold amount of time, no action with regards to the new status for each respective electronic device in response to the second amount of time being less than the second threshold amount of time (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 18 discloses wherein the second threshold amount of time is seven days (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 17), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 19 discloses providing, to a client, a device status report that includes the new status for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) with the device status report being electronically communicated to the client (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 20 discloses recording, upon receiving the shipping information, at least one of the indication that package tracking information is one of available and unavailable, the delivery date, and the shipment date for the return label for each corresponding electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and accessing at least one of the indication that package tracking information is available or unavailable, the delivery date, and the shipment date for the return label for each corresponding electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20180165635 – “Systems and Methods for Predictive In-Transit Shipment Delivery Exception Notification and Automated Resolution,” Modica et al, disclosing a system for requesting, receiving, updating, and analyzing shipment-based status of assets, including taking actions based on an expected status update time being exceeded by a specified amount
PGPub 20100138355 – “Next Generation Visibility Package Tracking,” Kodger, Jr., disclosing a system for requesting, receiving, updating, and analyzing shipment-based status of assets, including taking actions based on an expected status update failing to occur within a date and time frame
PGPub 20150356497 – “Methods and Apparatus for Monitoring and Control of Electronic Devices,” Reeder et al, disclosing a system for inventory tracking and management, including the locations of various devices and the activation and addition of new devices to the system
PGPub 20220305202 – “Cloud-Connected Ambulatory Pump Integration,” Rosinko et al, disclosing a system for tracking and managing the status, activity, repair, and replacement of personal medical devices across a plurality of users
PGPub 20210241225 – “Systems and Methods for Electronic Inventory and Return Item Reconciliation,” Rehn et al, disclosing a system for tracking and managing a plurality of shipped packages, including return and reconciliation of shipped items
PGPub 20210224727 – “Asset Management,” Rakhunde et al, disclosing a system for tracking the statuses of a plurality of mechanical and electronic devices, including in terms of location, repair (and need thereof), condition, certification, etc.
PGPub 20210019837 – “Multi-User Audit System, Method, and Techniques,” Watson, disclosing a system for allowing management and tracking of the status of various business assets over the course of their useful lives
PGPub 20240211871 – “Use of a Single SKU for Product Through Life Cycle,” Ramirez et al, disclosing a system for tracking the statuses (e.g., location, stock, whether sold or not) of inventory items and the components thereof
Dutta et al, A Tracking Solution of IT Assets and Resource Management, Int’l Journal of Mathematics and Computer Research, Vol. 10, Issue 7 (July 2022), disclosing techniques for enterprise-based asset tracking and management
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628